Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 01:11:15 05/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2000 at 16:21:50, Dan Newman wrote: >On April 30, 2000 at 14:15:23, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On April 29, 2000 at 16:42:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I think most do that already. IE I first probe the hash table, then I probe >>>the EGTB, then I call eval which first checks for clear draws. If it finds >>>one it returns. If it finds no pawns it does a special mate evaluation. If >>>it finds pawns, it does a normal lazy evaluation. >> >>Sure, I also think most programs do stuff like that. What I'm trying to bring >>attention to is (my supposed) explicit structural feature of Bruce's code re: >>his use of handlers. I suspect that most programs simply have this kind of >>logic hardwired in procedural fashion instead, e.g. if (blah) call sub else if >>(blah)..., which would be significantly less malleable over some fixed period of >>time. >> >>Dave > >Interesting. I've thought about doing stuff like this, but haven't done it >much because of all that extra function call overhead. I have played around >with this sort of thing in other parts of the code to avoid doing if-tests >though. With a scheme like this you could reconfigure the search code as you >search (or at least at the root)... > >-Dan. When there is this little material involved, the function call overhead is not a big deal. The big problem is incrementally keeping track of enough information that you can figure out which function to call, if any. In most cases, if there is a handler there will only be one handler. The handlers end up being very small, too. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.